Wii Review Scores--A Little Skewed?

[Blade]

The general consensus is that reviews are entirely subjective and their intricacies are author-specific.

For example, GameSpot has historically been harder score-wise than IGN, but they gave Yoshi's Island DS a full 1.1 more. How can you predict that? You can't.

I'm just trying to make it known that if you ask IGN how they rate games, they'll tell you that its in accordance with what is possible on that system. Is this imperfect? Yes! It's what they (and every other major publication) have done since the early 90s. It's not opinion, it's fact.

 

[crazygambit]

And how did the "capability" of the console change in between the launch of DMC3 and then the launch of the SE version? Answer - it didn't. Therefore why the lower score?

Remember, the argument was that scores for graphics should be determined by how well the game used the capability of the console. And so if in your example the same game was released twice - then the score should be the same.

The bolded text is just wrong. Since it's impossible to predict the future capabilities of the console, the graphics scoring is based on a comparison of what's already available on the platform. Since at launch there are very few titles available that's not a very good indicator so what should be done is at follows:

You should look at all the launch titles and pick the one that has the very best graphical quality and give that a 10 and work your way down. Then you should look at the platform and the expectations for said platform. If the very best looking PS3 game doesn't look like the best of what X360 has to offer then you take off points (and correct acordingly to the rest of the games). If the very best graphical showcase for the Wii doesn't look "next-gen" compared to what Xbox 1 had to offer then you take off points accordingly as well.

And btw my DMC3 example is perfectly valid because at the time of it's launch the game had 9 in graphics compared to what was available on the market. DMC3 S.E. didn't compare as well since the graphical bar had been raised by following games which is why it got an 8 in graphics at Gamespot. It's a pretty logical argument really, you really can't expect the graphics of 10 PS2 game from 2001 to be comparable to a 10 PS2 game from 2006. If you ever go hunting for older games on the platform I think you'll be very dissapointed if you have that expectation.

 

[Rolf N]

And why wouldn't it? Check out the IGN comparison thread in the games section. They are already comparing PS3 to 360 games, directly. Why shouldn't the Wii be included in the mix? Because they choose not to compete in the graphics arena? They made the choice, the review scores should reflect that choice.

I haven't checked the IGN reviews (seen the quotes in the thread though) but maybe they just skipped the Wii because they didn't have multiplat games available for review?

What I expect though is basically "The Wii version seems technically solid and looks nice for what it is but after you've seen one of the other versions in HD, it's going to be hard to go back. If you have a Snarkosphere, make no mistake and get the game for that!". And a score in the 8 range. Something like that. It really isn't a contradiction. They can tell you the Wii version is the worst-looking of the bunch in absolute terms, they can show you the screen grabs to prove it/let you judge for yourself, and still at the same time say that it has well-made graphics and looks nice.

Take a look at Xbox PC ports. Far Cry, Halflife, Doom3, etc.. They got high scores because they were still the best looking console games available. But they got downgraded from their PC peers because of the comparison to their PC peers.

That's unfortunate but might (I haven't checked) in the case of PC->console ports have something to do with the different control schemes and enemy behaviour/placement/other stuff just not making for as good of a play experience with a pad. Dunno. If it happens totally arbitrarily though, it's not a good thing IMO.

The comparisons will happen, they always have. As far as the DS goes, I can't really talk on that subject because I have no interest and know nothing about handhelds. I'm under the assumption that the DS is less-powerful than the PSP, but I'm also under the assumption that the games available for each platform are completely different.

I don't recall that anyone has been successful in proving that the DS is the more powerful graphics monster versus the PSP by abusing review scores
Or maybe it has happened somewhere in the depths of a much more juvenile forum. Here we are all reasonable enough to only do that with the 360 and the PS3. And maybe we shouldn't.

And for that it really doesn't make a difference how your cross-platform ratings work. Both approaches can be creatively misunderstood to make the preferred system look better.

I.e. if ratings are "relative to system capability", someone might in fact claim that a review with this method applied "proves" that His System is more powerful than Your System (by (deliberately) ignoring the method).
OTOH if ratings are absolute (Btw, how? 10/10 is "like nature itself"?), someone might deliberately ignore that too and claim that a nine on a Snarkosphere means much more than a nine on the objectively much less powerful Master System.

Both approaches are good for many pages of fun.

The problem with the Wii isn't Super Smash Bros or Wii Sports, or any of their first party exclusives that will have unique art styles that won't have comparable titles on other platforms. The problem is when the Wii does try to bring games to its platform from genres that are better represented on the more powerful hardware of its competitors.

Yeah, I agree, but I'm just not as worried about it. The information that the Wii version doesn't deliver the maximum graphical impact will be easily available, and people will quickly learn to not expect miracles.

Btw, and almost unrelated, subjectivity can be a strange thing. I'd ask you just for fun to go to gamevideos.com or something and watch a couple Excite Truck and Zelda videos, if you haven't seen them already. I'd be interested to know if you find them ugly or nice. For me, knowing that the games are on the Wii, there is no problem in finding these games beautiful. OTOH if you told me those were modern PC games I'd find them revolting.

 

[pakotlar]

I'm confused. I thought the reviews on sites like IGN and Gamespot were for games. What are these console reviews are we talking about? Anyone got a link?

Comeon fearsome, I thought you were better than that. Why attack semantics? The whole post is clearly about games developed for the system, not the system itself. I'll edit the post; lol what a brilliant rebuttal my man.

 

[pakotlar]

Aha, funny. There's a marked difference between being blunt and being asinine. Allow me to explain.



I agree. Sometimes a game is greater than the sum of its parts.



By "a console" you're referring to "Wii games", am I right? Games are what I'm arguing about, not the hardware. The hardware (disregarding the remote) is cheap and thus weak in comparison to X360/PS3.

God bless you, graphics whore. Is Wii overpriced? Maybe a smidge. Is it still less than half the price of PS3? Yes, and clearly worth it at launch, given that Zelda is probably the GOTY. I don't blame you for complaining, but I'm content with that. For now.

They're not. I recall Nintendo losing last-gen while out-performing the PS2 hardware-wise, though. Nintendo wants to expand the market, and make their system stand out. GameCube's problem was that it wasn't quite as powerful as Xbox and not quite as popular as PS2. It was the middle child, and it suffered for it. Wii is trying to be the new baby in the family, getting all of the attention while big brother and big sister fight over who has the better graphics. We'll see how this works out.

In my case, I got the 360 in September.

Wow. Just... wow.

Lol. Well most of the post is attacking my wording on console vs. console games. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The post has been edited to reflect what I meant.

If you're not arguing about the systems then you should not be arguing about games developed for those systems either. The two go hand in hand. The characteristics of the system (aka graphics hardware, 6axis motion sensing/accelerometer, etc) reflect many of the possibilities for the games.

Is Wii overpriced a smidge? I'd say more than a smidge. Its BOM should be fairly small compared to the gamecubes @ launch, considering that the CPU and GPU IC's (or are they combined now...?) are produced on a 90nm node, and the only real change as far as transistor count is concerned is some tweaks to the CPU (supposed physics module etc). And yet they are charging 250 dollars for the package. Oh yes, I forgot, 512MB of NAND. How much is 512MB of flash memory. Any more than $20?

What does last-gen have to do with this gen? Nintendo took a completely different approach with regards to hardware this gen. They were competing in terms of processing power last generation.

I agree that we will see how it works out. Re-read my post. I mention that it could be a smart corporate move to make a console that generates profit on launch hardware wise as long as consumers overlook the significant reduction in visual/ai/physics fidelity. How much of a reduction this will be is to be seen (as compared to games on PS3 and X360).

 

[thenefariousone]

The bolded text is just wrong. Since it's impossible to predict the future capabilities of the console, the graphics scoring is based on a comparison of what's already available on the platform. Since at launch there are very few titles available that's not a very good indicator so what should be done is at follows:

You should look at all the launch titles and pick the one that has the very best graphical quality and give that a 10 and work your way down. Then you should look at the platform and the expectations for said platform. If the very best looking PS3 game doesn't look like the best of what X360 has to offer then you take off points (and correct acordingly to the rest of the games). If the very best graphical showcase for the Wii doesn't look "next-gen" compared to what Xbox 1 had to offer then you take off points accordingly as well.

And btw my DMC3 example is perfectly valid because at the time of it's launch the game had 9 in graphics compared to what was available on the market. DMC3 S.E. didn't compare as well since the graphical bar had been raised by following games which is why it got an 8 in graphics at Gamespot. It's a pretty logical argument really, you really can't expect the graphics of 10 PS2 game from 2001 to be comparable to a 10 PS2 game from 2006. If you ever go hunting for older games on the platform I think you'll be very dissapointed if you have that expectation.

It's simpler to comparing the new console to the older ones available. In the case of the wii, the competition is the ps2, xbox, and xbox 360 - as they are all at least one year older than it.

In fact - the wii graphics should be more critically judged as the hardware changes were nowhere near as significant as normal. Compare the change from xbox -> 360, ps2 -> ps3, versus gamecube -> wii.

The usual excuse that developers are getting used to the new hardware doesn't apply here. Developers can literally make a gamecube games for it - so the bar for wii graphics should start at gamecube levels.

 

[ninzel]

Don't compare,just play the game and if you like it say so,then explain why.That's how I would try and review games.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

What I expect though is basically "The Wii version seems technically solid and looks nice for what it is but after you've seen one of the other versions in HD, it's going to be hard to go back. If you have a Snarkosphere, make no mistake and get the game for that!". And a score in the 8 range. Something like that. It really isn't a contradiction.

It sure is a contradiction if the other versions that look better also only rate 8s. If it seems technically solid and looks nice 'for what it is' but is a vast contrast to it's competitors, then it should get a score accordingly.

They can tell you the Wii version is the worst-looking of the bunch in absolute terms, they can show you the screen grabs to prove it/let you judge for yourself, and still at the same time say that it has well-made graphics and looks nice.

Reviews aren't about 'judging for yourself'. Reviews are about the reviewer telling you what the game is. The only judgment on the consumer side is whether or not they decide to believe/agree with the particular reviewer.

I don't recall that anyone has been successful in proving that the DS is the more powerful graphics monster versus the PSP by abusing review scores

I don't know what you're saying here. But then again, not following handhelds, I really have no idea what analogy you were attempting at the start.

Yeah, I agree, but I'm just not as worried about it. The information that the Wii version doesn't deliver the maximum graphical impact will be easily available, and people will quickly learn to not expect miracles.

I'm not worried about it, either. But I fail to understand why the consumer is supposed to inform themselves that the Wii is so horribly inferior graphically, that they are supposed to know that a score of 8 in graphics means something completely different than a score of 8 for a 360 or PS3 game.

The reason consumers read reviews to begin with is to get an idea of what to expect. Why make the consumer do the math in their head? "Madden 2007 for the Wii got an 8 in graphics, but I know the Wii is horribly inferior to its competitors and is rated on a completely different scale so that 8 in graphics is really more like a 5."

Why not just tell them it's a 5 to begin with?

I really think this all comes down to the huge gamble that Nintendo made with this console, and its one that even Nintendo fans should be upset about. They could have made a more powerful console, they could have done so at their current price point. They choose not to. They choose to release a console that is graphically obsolete even before it comes to market.

They don't deserve to be graded on a different playing field because they bet that review scores of 8s and 9s in gameplay would offset review scores of 5s and 6s in graphics.

 

[Rolf N]

It sure is a contradiction if the other versions that look better also only rate 8s. If it seems technically solid and looks nice 'for what it is' but is a vast contrast to it's competitors, then it should get a score accordingly.

Reviews aren't about 'judging for yourself'. Reviews are about the reviewer telling you what the game is. The only judgment on the consumer side is whether or not they decide to believe/agree with the particular reviewer.

All reviews come with screenshots. There's no need to place more trust in a numerical score than in your own judgement. The reviewer can try to describe graphics quality and maybe you'll even agree 100% but it's always preferable to have a look at the screens. You know, a picture says more than a thousand words.

In that sense the reviewer can not only tell you, he/she can show you.

I don't know what you're saying here. But then again, not following handhelds, I really have no idea what analogy you were attempting at the start.

The PSP hardware is much stronger than the DS. That's pretty much settled. Taken together with the reality of reviews, that is the scales for graphics sub-scores are most of the time relative to system capabilities, it shows that the internet can sometimes resist against drawing dumb conclusions from misinterpreted data.

The DS is not perceived as a graphics monster just because its games get graphics sub-scores on par with PSP games. Readers and buyers understand that, otherwise there'd be a lot more software returns or lawsuits.

I'm not worried about it, either. But I fail to understand why the consumer is supposed to inform themselves that the Wii is so horribly inferior graphically, that they are supposed to know that a score of 8 in graphics means something completely different than a score of 8 for a 360 or PS3 game.

The reason consumers read reviews to begin with is to get an idea of what to expect. Why make the consumer do the math in their head? "Madden 2007 for the Wii got an 8 in graphics, but I know the Wii is horribly inferior to its competitors and is rated on a completely different scale so that 8 in graphics is really more like a 5."

Why not just tell them it's a 5 to begin with?

Because people who have just that one console and want to know if the game is any good would be turned away? 50%, from my experience, means "run to the hills".

Scoring systems aren't linear. Anything below 75% of whatever maximum score you have is "pass this one up", below 85% is so-so while the really good stuff starts at 90%. If reviews are adjusted to satisfy your particular needs, many of the people who come to be informed will leave with a very wrong impression.

In a totally perfect world some of that could probably be changed, but there is a lot of inertia in the real world, reviews are done in a particular way that people (and publishers!) are used to and can handle, and that's not going to change in such drastic ways, even though your argument does make sense.

Cross-platform equality of scores is interesting only for some of the hardcore people who buy multiple machines. There's a legitimate desire to pick the best version of a multiplat game, but it's only for very few people. Many more people are just going to be terribly confused.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Scoring systems aren't linear. Anything below 75% of whatever maximum score you have is "pass this one up", below 85% is so-so while the really good stuff starts at 90%. If reviews are adjusted to satisfy your particular needs, many of the people who come to be informed will leave with a very wrong impression.

Which addresses a fundamental problem in the review process across the board, something I was going to mention 3 pages ago and decided not to derail the thread with.

Cross-platform equality of scores is interesting only for some of the hardcore people who buy multiple machines. There's a legitimate desire to pick the best version of a multiplat game, but it's only for very few people. Many more people are just going to be terribly confused.

We'll just have to disagree here, because I think they are of interest and relevance to almost 100% of the gaming population and potential gaming population. What better way to decide which system to purchase, if not by seeing which system has the games that garner the highest reviews?

If I'm a college frat boy interested in EA Sports games, I don't want to look at reviews that compare those games to 'what is capable on the console', I want to know which console provides the best games when I decide if I want to buy the PS3, 360, or Wii.

If I'm at my friend's house and he's playing CoD on the 360 and I know it got a score of 8 in graphics, and I read a review for CoD on the Wii and it also gets a score of 8 in graphics, I might decide to save some cash, buy the Wii instead of the 360 and get the same game. Until I get the system and the game home and realize that its a mere shell of the game I saw at my friend's.

Last generation, I had many friends that had a PS2 or a Xbox, but not very many with both. It was very confusing for them to play a great looking game on their friend's Xbox, hear about a wonderful looking PS2 game, go out and buy it, get it home and realize that it doesn't look good. It looks good for the PS2.

So comparison rankings are important for far more people than just those who have multiple consoles and want to know which version to buy. They are important for those deciding which console they want to buy, they are important for expectations.

The Wii owner, even if he doesn't own another console, doesn't live in a vacuum. He sees adverts on TV for PS3 and 360 games, and probably has friends/neighbors with PS3s and 360s. A high score in graphics in a game review should be reflective of the quality of the graphics of its time.

If I spent the last 10 years programming and drawing out ever bit of power from an Atari 2600, and was able to reproduce King's Quest 1 on the Atari 2600 tomorrow, should that game be scored 10/10 because I harnessed the full power of the Atari 2600?

 

[Blade]

If I spent the last 10 years programming and drawing out ever bit of power from an Atari 2600, and was able to reproduce King's Quest 1 on the Atari 2600 tomorrow, should that game be scored 10/10 because I harnessed the full power of the Atari 2600?

Yes.

 

[Ty]

And at a console's launch, how would you tell what a console is "capable of"? There simply isn't enough games to give you enough data points to judge a console's capabilities.

Once you have a bunch, then sure, it then becomes a intra-console relative process, but at launch? Hardly possible.

And of course, never mind the aesthetic portion when judging the graphics of a game - case in point WoW which seems to still get lauded for its graphics despite how little it stresses a PC's capabilities.

 

[Deepak]

I am a bit surprised by IGN's Zelda score. They gave both Gameplay/Lasting appeal a 9.5 whereas remaining 3 scores were 8/8.5/8 if IIRC but they still gave it an overall 9.5. Didn't it deserve to lose some points for remaining 3 categories?

 

[Ty]

I am a bit surprised by IGN's Zelda score. They gave both Gameplay/Lasting appeal a 9.5 whereas remaining 3 scores were 8/8.5/8 if IIRC but they still gave it an overall 9.5. Didn't it deserve to lose some points for remaining 3 categories?

Well overall scores are NOT necessarily reflective of scores from the other categories. It's just what they think it should be given. This is yet just another example of how subjective the whole process is.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Last generation, I had many friends that had a PS2 or a Xbox, but not very many with both. It was very confusing for them to play a great looking game on their friend's Xbox, hear about a wonderful looking PS2 game, go out and buy it, get it home and realize that it doesn't look good.

Anyone who by this point doesn't realize that Xbox is more powerful than PS2 deserves to be confused.

A high score in graphics in a game review should be reflective of the quality of the graphics of its time.

And by 2004, all Xbox/PS2/Cube games looked like total garbage compared to what was on PC, at which you doubtlessly will bring out the tired old "PC doesn't count because then I can't talk about how awesome and cutting-edge Xbox is." I say Xbox Doom 3 should get a 6.0 for graphics. Fact is, if we judge things based on the times, well, graphics, software, and video game technology have advanced on PC far, far beyond anything on the consoles within about 3 years' time.

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

I am a bit surprised by IGN's Zelda score. They gave both Gameplay/Lasting appeal a 9.5 whereas remaining 3 scores were 8/8.5/8 if IIRC but they still gave it an overall 9.5. Didn't it deserve to lose some points for remaining 3 categories?

I agree, IGN's overall score can sometimes be a bit misleading and contradictory to the breakdown scores for each catagorie. With that said, the overall score is not an average but more or less what the reviewer feels the game should get. If they give the game a six in presentation, gameplay, lasting appeal, ect they can still give the game an overall of 90% if they feel like doing so. What I find best to do is just read / watch the review inorder to best find out what the reviewer thought of the game when looking at IGN and most other game sites for that matter.

In the case of Matt's review of Twilight Princess, I think the game should have gotten a little lower than a 9.5 after viewing the score breakdown. A 95% to me indicates a game of amazing quality on all fronts, not just gameplay and length of story. If a game does not measure up in terms of graphics, presentation and audio then it should be docked accordingly, but I guess Matt found Twilight Princess gameplay good enough to overcome the shortcomings in the other catagories.

 

[Paul_G]

I am a bit surprised by IGN's Zelda score. They gave both Gameplay/Lasting appeal a 9.5 whereas remaining 3 scores were 8/8.5/8 if IIRC but they still gave it an overall 9.5. Didn't it deserve to lose some points for remaining 3 categories?

Not every part of a game is easily covered by the individual areas they score on. Some games have that intangible something that cannot be scored into the graphics/sound/gameplay. I believe one of the sites has a 'tilt' factor to take that sort of thing into account, though i don't read online reviews too often, so i may be wrong.

On the topic at hand, it does seem like a lot of people are looking at it from the perspective of buying a new system, which right now is pretty valid, Wii and PS3 are new out, but in 6 months time...when 2 million Wii's are out there and you're deciding what game to get for yours, seeing every Wii game scoring no higher than 6 is a hinderance, not a help. If that's your console, how does it help you to know the 360 version looks better? Note should be made, in the text or in a small breakdown, that the PS360 version looks better but the score itself should be taken in isolation, otherwise 4 games for Wii that may have scored 6,7,8 and 9 for graphics when taking Wii as a platform might only score 5,5,6 and 6 making life harder for the reader.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I like IGN's non-average score a little better than Gspots weighted average, although they've got the "Tilt" factor. I think it's to communicate basically the "overall sense of awesomeness." If you really care particularly about graphics, you can always just look at the individual scores.